While the rest of the league YINGs, should the Raptors now YANG?

Last August this article came out in Atlanta talking about the new NBA. At the time I remember either starting a thread or putting it in another thread and saying Toronto should follow the same steps as they were positioned to do so. Unfortunately I can't find it.

The more punitive tax rate is just one aspect of the rules meant to curtail the big spenders. The rules also stipulate that teams with payrolls more than $4 million above the tax line canít execute sign-and-trades, can acquire less salary in trades than non-taxpaying teams, and have a smaller mid-level exception and no bi-annual exception.

Cuban is betting those rules will lead to high-payroll teams being unable to acquire superstars, leaving those with cap space in a stronger position to make deals for those players. Ferry is predicting the same.

ďItís the same path,Ē Ferry said. ďWe donít have [Dirk] Nowitzki but we have more assets. We have good players. [The Mavs] are piecing things together to keep flexibility to stay competitive. On some level, we are in a similar mode as what Dallas is doing.

ďWith Josh [Smith] and Jeff [Teague] and Al [Horford] and flexibility around it and draft choices ahead. I think we are positioned well to be opportunistic whether thatís trade [or] whether thatís free agency in the future. Itís not an exact path. Itís about having a situation where you can be opportunistic.Ē

.
.
.

Now that Ferry has gained the flexibility he coveted, the next step is trying to make the Hawks the kind of franchise where the best players want to work.

ďIím trying to build well from the inside out,Ē Ferry said. ďWe need to build an organizational pride from within. We are not hinging our program on cap space or anything like that. We are hinging it on building a good program and having flexibility to make a trade or do free agency or do whatever.

ďTo get centric on cap space, [focusing on] would a free agent come here, thatís not what we are doing right now. Thatís not the mode we are in right now. We are in a mode of, ĎLetís build on an organizational pride and build an even better run machine as an organization.í

ďFrom there, pride will grow and I think the opportunities that are out there, we are in a good position to be in the game, whether thatís a trade or a free agent or whatever that is.Ē

Today another article along the same lines comes out of Cleveland with a GM in Wallace who worked under and eventually replaced Ferry (now Atlanta GM).

The perfect illustration for how the new collective-bargaining agreement is changing the landscape of the NBA is located in the leagueís official transaction log.

At the trade deadline two years ago, teams traded away a total of 11 first-round picks. By last season, the first under the newly negotiated CBA, only four first-round picks were dealt. And during this yearís recently completed trading season, only one first-round pick was traded.

.
.
.

But the dramatic drop from 11 first-round picks traded two years ago to just one this year illustrates the impact of the escalating luxury taxes that will take effect next year. Players making less are suddenly worth more. Much more.

ďTeams right now are scared of money,Ē one league executive said recently.

The days of general managers playing fast and loose with first-round picks are over. Guys like Gerald Wallace, who was dealt at the trade deadline in consecutive years, donít hold the same value that they did just 12 months ago.

The Charlotte Bobcats acquired two of those 11 first-round picks during the trading season two years ago, swindling two out of the Portland Trail Blazers for Wallace, a good-but-not-great wing who has made one All-Star Game in 12 years. Then the Blazers recouped a first-round pick, No. 6 overall, when they dealt Wallace to the New Jersey Nets in a panic move at the trade deadline last season.

The Blazers plucked the likely Rookie of the Year with that selection in Damian Lillard. Wallace, meanwhile, is still owed $30 million over the next three seasons. Thatís the type of contract that now would typically get him traded along with a first-round pick to any team willing to absorb that type of salary. Wallaceís saving grace is that he plays for the Brooklyn Nets and billionaire owner Mikhail Prokhorov, who scoffs at the looming tax damages coming his way.

Precious few owners around the NBA can behave that way. Beginning next season, the new luxury tax will punish teams more harshly for going over the cap and it annihilates habitual offenders.

The new tax rules are what prompted Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban to go on Dallas radio recently and suggest the Los Angeles Lakers might need to release Kobe Bryant before next season using the leagueís amnesty clause.

Of course, Cuban was just baiting the Lakers and their fans because thatís what he enjoys doing, and no one actually believes the Lakers would release Bryant. But he will earn $30 million next season, when the Lakers could be paying more than $90 million just in luxury taxes if Dwight Howard signs a max contract this summer.

Add in the $100 million in actual payroll and the Buss family, who just lost their patriarch when Jerry died last week, could be writing checks next season that total $200 million. Of course, the Lakers are believed to be pulling in about $150 million a season just on their television contract with Time Warner Cable, but no other team has that type of television deal, meaning most of the leagueís owners ó including Cuban ó canít afford that type of payroll and luxury tax.

Thatís why Cuban began dismantling the Mavericks shortly after winning the championship two years ago. He once was one of the leagueís carefree spenders, but Cuban has grown much thriftier in recent years. Itís part of the reason he traded with the Cavs to move down seven spots last summer, giving Tyler Zeller to Cleveland with the 17th pick in exchange for the 24th, 33rd and 34th picks. In Cubanís eyes, the more rookie scale contracts, the better.

The league suddenly cares about payrolls minus 3 teams (LAL, BKN, NYK). Even Miami has rumblings of one of their big 3 being traded in the next year or two (yes, you Bosh) unless someone opts out (yes, you LeBron).

The Raptors for years avoided the tax like the plague because they were run by an ownership group that did not care about winning, just profits. Now the Raptors are owned by an ownership group that needs an exciting and/or winning product because their base business (media, in particular television) depends on it.

If DeMar's contract killed all talk of financial flexibility under the cap moving forward, acquiring Rudy Gay took a nail gun to the lid of the coffin. For all intents and purposes - amnesty or not - the Raptors have no financial flexibility. They also have traded away picks at a time other teams are hoarding.

So as teams around the league cut back and make financial trades versus basketball trades, it is probably a good time for Toronto to step up and start making basketball trades regardless of finances. After all, the Raptors are owned by two telecommunications giants who have well over half the Canadian market for TV, internet, home phone, and mobility services and they play in a top 5 market of North America with a strong fan base/attendance.

Don't confuse what I am saying here, I don't expect or think Toronto to become the Brooklyn Nets with their $13B dollar man owner or the Lakers with their $150M annual TV deal. What I am saying is the Raptors are in a position to take on the productive but overpaid contracts that other teams are avoiding like the plague. Wins on the court could very well make up for the added expense of the player salary.

A perfect example is Boozer in Chicago. Chicago was unable to get under the luxury tax prior to trading deadline. This will be the first season they pay the luxury tax. At the end of this season, after cutting the cheque, and looking at the new SUPER luxury tax rates coming in for 2013-14 (already over tax with just 8 players) and then realizing that in 2014-2015 they are going to have to pay the repeater tax in addition (with $58M tied up in just 6 players), might the Raptors be able to take advantage? I hope yes - and I mean more than just a Bargnani for Boozer swap - picks too please. (Of course, Chicago might also decide to trade Deng with the emergence of Butler this season).

So while the rest of the league starts looking for bang for the buck, Toronto might finally have an opportunity to just focus on basketball.

I'm totally with you. I think we have those solid surrounding pieces to be a playoff team. It's just about acquiring that one more very productive, big name piece to go along with Gay and Derozan. Boozer is likely to be that type of guy.

Toronto will likely go over the punitive luxury tax, but at the end of the day it's about winning games and getting production on the court. Adding a guy like Boozer via trade, and using MLE on perimeter shooters/back-up guard may put us into contending mode.

At some point, prospects, picks, and financial flexibility has to be used whether they improve, get drafted, or taken up. From the off-season till next season's trade deadline is going to be key in terms of making that team.

I don't think you're crazy, but as I said in a thread about...some other crap, forget now, it depends on the nature of the commitment. Boozer, and Gasol, are both ok by me mainly because of the limited length of their deals. So this team would have flexibility the year Gay is expiring, and also would (I think) be able to remodel their finances from that point on and probably try to avoid paying the repeater tax (it takes 3 years, right?) that next upcoming season.

I am not a fan of trying to commit big money to other guys like Millsap, Jefferson, Smith, etc...even if sign and trades could somehow be worked out. Partly because of the instant cost in money/assets, but mostly because I really want that summer where Gay expires to be able to stay a window to remodel the team/payroll. Signing one of those guys might absolutely destroy any chance of that, assuming they'd all want 3-4 year deals. Once again, the only existing long-term deal I'd commit to is Ilyasova because he's good value who can fit beyond that 2nd year for sure...I somehow doubt any of the other guys get deals in his range. And frankly, with JV's touches expected to go up yearly, I don't want someone taking away from that for longer than Boozer or Gasol would. Millsap is the only guy who could fit as well or better long-term in my mind, but what I expect will be the difference in cost (long $$ commitment that costs other basketball assets to get) just won't make him worth it IMO.

But yes, I am all for committing to putting the best possible product on the court for the next 2 seasons, whatever the financial cost, as long as it's not a terribly risky move for beyond that. So I'd definitely agree that Boozer seems like the most realistic option, and Gasol as maybe the best, but only maybe. Again, I was fine, in theory, with BC waiting to acquire Boozer given the hole the team had dug itself...no need to pay the tax this year and be stuck in Chicago's boat financially, for a slightly better chance at getting swept by Miami. Hopefully it pays off and they get a better configuration of the deal in the summer.

*I realize Bargs for Ilyasova is kind of a pipe dream that basically depends entirely on Milwaukee blowing it up and tanking.

If they go your suggested route (which I agree with) no pussyfooting. Go big. Get the best players possible. Go after players of Gay's stature or higher. To me that means no to Millsap or Boozer, a solid maybe for Gasol. Also, if they are capped out they need to more seriously scout the NCAAs, Europe, D League, China, etc. Not for draft picks (might have to trade those), but for cheap, young free agent talent. Content is king. Enough with Toronto teams acting like they're in a small market.

Last August this article came out in Atlanta talking about the new NBA. At the time I remember either starting a thread or putting it in another thread and saying Toronto should follow the same steps as they were positioned to do so. Unfortunately I can't find it.

Today another article along the same lines comes out of Cleveland with a GM in Wallace who worked under and eventually replaced Ferry (now Atlanta GM).

The league suddenly cares about payrolls minus 3 teams (LAL, BKN, NYK). Even Miami has rumblings of one of their big 3 being traded in the next year or two (yes, you Bosh) unless someone opts out (yes, you LeBron).

The Raptors for years avoided the tax like the plague because they were run by an ownership group that did not care about winning, just profits. Now the Raptors are owned by an ownership group that needs an exciting and/or winning product because their base business (media, in particular television) depends on it.

If DeMar's contract killed all talk of financial flexibility under the cap moving forward, acquiring Rudy Gay took a nail gun to the lid of the coffin. For all intents and purposes - amnesty or not - the Raptors have no financial flexibility. They also have traded away picks at a time other teams are hoarding.

So as teams around the league cut back and make financial trades versus basketball trades, it is probably a good time for Toronto to step up and start making basketball trades regardless of finances. After all, the Raptors are owned by two telecommunications giants who have well over half the Canadian market for TV, internet, home phone, and mobility services and they play in a top 5 market of North America with a strong fan base/attendance.

Don't confuse what I am saying here, I don't expect or think Toronto to become the Brooklyn Nets with their $13B dollar man owner or the Lakers with their $150M annual TV deal. What I am saying is the Raptors are in a position to take on the productive but overpaid contracts that other teams are avoiding like the plague. Wins on the court could very well make up for the added expense of the player salary.

A perfect example is Boozer in Chicago. Chicago was unable to get under the luxury tax prior to trading deadline. This will be the first season they pay the luxury tax. At the end of this season, after cutting the cheque, and looking at the new SUPER luxury tax rates coming in for 2013-14 (already over tax with just 8 players) and then realizing that in 2014-2015 they are going to have to pay the repeater tax in addition (with $58M tied up in just 6 players), might the Raptors be able to take advantage? I hope yes - and I mean more than just a Bargnani for Boozer swap - picks too please. (Of course, Chicago might also decide to trade Deng with the emergence of Butler this season).

So while the rest of the league starts looking for bang for the buck, Toronto might finally have an opportunity to just focus on basketball.

What do you think? Crazy am I?

The chances of the Raptors acquiring Boozer would have been significantly higher if the Rudy Gay Trade didn't pan out, I find it hilarious that MLSE thought that they gain profits without substantial wins under this teams belt, hopefully they now understand the "shock value" that's created when the Raptors start and maintain a winning streak, and possibly start to do their homework to rebuild the talent on this team.

I think the Raptors are Yanging even more than that. While other teams are looking for bang for their buck and succeeding (resulting in good young teams), we end up getting overpriced contracts on the way to mediocrity (ala a poor man's Nets). We'll likely be resigning Lowry to a huge deal, too.

It's not a bad plan, provided that Bell/Rogers buy into the logic in the OP. I do think they have a higher salary threshold than the previous owners, but I'm not sure they are willing to go to the length you need to go to get assets back.

I think that if Boozer gets traded, what he gets traded for will say a lot about what players values are. If the bulls have to include picks to get rid of him, that is very telling. I'm not sure the league has reached that point yet.

"We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

It's not a bad plan, provided that Bell/Rogers buy into the logic in the OP. I do think they have a higher salary threshold than the previous owners, but I'm not sure they are willing to go to the length you need to go to get assets back.

I think that if Boozer gets traded, what he gets traded for will say a lot about what players values are. If the bulls have to include picks to get rid of him, that is very telling. I'm not sure the league has reached that point yet.

+1. Need the ownership group to be on-board fully to pull it off, but it's certainly a plan that could work given the current climate.

It's a decent idea in theory, and the Raptors have already pulled off one deal like this with the Rudy Gay trade. The Raptors moved financial flexibility (a rookie scale deal + an expiring) for a player that was overpaid but still productive.

The problem I see with trying to do similar deals is that the Raptors don't have any more financially friendly contracts to entice teams with unless they make Lowry, Ross, JV, or future first round picks available. Bargnani's "basketball" value is bottoming out, and the length/amount of his contract is in the same ballpark as a lot of the guys we'd be targeting. I think it's a little ambitious to expect the Bulls to send Boozer AND a first rounder in exchange for a player that is bottoming out and still owed a huge sum of money in his own right. The Bulls lose that deal basketball wise, their savings aren't staggering (still a luxury tax team even with the deal, no?) and they're giving up a first rounder that you say have more value around the league than ever in the process. If they're that cap conscious then they likely have an iron grip around their first rounders right now.

It's a decent idea in theory, and the Raptors have already pulled off one deal like this with the Rudy Gay trade. The Raptors moved financial flexibility (a rookie scale deal + an expiring) for a player that was overpaid but still productive.

The problem I see with trying to do similar deals is that the Raptors don't have any more financially friendly contracts to entice teams with unless they make Lowry, Ross, JV, or future first round picks available. Bargnani's "basketball" value is bottoming out, and the length/amount of his contract is in the same ballpark as a lot of the guys we'd be targeting. I think it's a little ambitious to expect the Bulls to send Boozer AND a first rounder in exchange for a player that is bottoming out and still owed a huge sum of money in his own right. The Bulls lose that deal basketball wise, their savings aren't staggering (still a luxury tax team even with the deal, no?) and they're giving up a first rounder that you say have more value around the league than ever in the process. If they're that cap conscious then they likely have an iron grip around their first rounders right now.

I would not underestimate the motivation of owners to not pay the tax. Remember, the tax is increasing significantly but add to that they do not get a share of the also increased revenue sharing. So suddenly being $5M over the cap could cost you $20M ($12.75 in salary/tax plus portion of revenue sharing).

This deal would move the Bulls under the current tax by almost $2.5M plus what ever the cap/tax levels increase by next season. Bargnani likely would not be starter in Chicago with Gibson having a large contract and a better player. Also, next season they will have another year counting towards the repeater tax. A first round pick is also guaranteed money which they may not wish to add.

You may very well be right on everything but in keeping with the spirit of the thread, there are going to be less and less basketball trades being made when it comes to money. Saving $5M under the new tax will save the Bulls anywhere from $12.5M to 13.75M ($5M salary plus $7.5M tax on first $5M over tax or $8.75M from $5-10M over tax).

MLSE/Raptors have always had he opportunity to do this. The Raptors are a 'have' basketball team and always have been.

Yet they've never willingly done this.

Is it a great opportunity for Toronto to take advantage of this (ie. be a spender while other teams are trying to be savers)? Definetely. To me its a no brainer. In fact, given the roster make up and where Colangelo has placed this team, I think they HAVE to do it to build any sort of sucess.

But I'm not sure this is the question. I think the real question is - will MLSE/Rogers/Bell do it? Atleast to any degree of significance. And I don't think there is an easy answer for that.

I know you've mentioned Rogers/Bell wanting to own content (which is one of reasons why they bought MLSE ofcourse), but that doesn't mean they don't have a line drawn where the cost of that content is no longer acceptable. For instance, whoever owns the history channel isn't going to pay David Hasselhoff 20 mil dollars to host a show on the history of gardening books. Its just not cost effective. The same applies to their sports teams.

Rogers/Bell bought MLSE with the plan on owning the content they show - but they also want to be profitable. Even if we assume Rogers/Bell would be less conservative then OTPP, and more willing to spend, as it stands right now there is no evidence they'd willingly spend deep into the tax to do so. The cost of their content still needs to be less then their income from it, and at a price that allows them to pay back the the purchase price of buying that content.

That the Boozer trade didn't happen could be evidence of this. To me it was a no brainer deal (assuming the deal rumoured was the deal on the table - which I'll admit is a huge assumption). I can only see 2 reason's why that deal wasn't taken. 1) MLSE wasn't willing to, or yet willing to, pay any more in salaries. 2) Colangelo thinks Bargnani is worth more than Boozer. (just to throw it out there the third reason I could see as to why the deal didn't happen is the deal wasn't actually what was rumoured. ie. Chicago wanted something else but for the purposes of this thread I'm assuming the rumoured deal was THE deal available)

So, again, does it make sense to be a spending team? From a perspective of trying to win now it doesn't make sense not to. But from a business/profitability perspective, we'd have to ask MLSE's CFO. Rogers/Bell don't turn profits by throwing good money after bad (and I can tell you, atleast with Bell, their shareholders tend to eyeball big purchases. Bell has a questionable history in that regard). But the Boozer deal not going down raises a red flag to me.

MLSE/Raptors have always had he opportunity to do this. The Raptors are a 'have' basketball team and always have been.

Yet they've never willingly done this.

Is it a great opportunity for Toronto to take advantage of this (ie. be a spender while other teams are trying to be savers)? Definetely. To me its a no brainer. In fact, given the roster make up and where Colangelo has placed this team, I think they HAVE to do it to build any sort of sucess.

But I'm not sure this is the question. I think the real question is - will MLSE/Rogers/Bell do it? Atleast to any degree of significance. And I don't think there is an easy answer for that.

I know you've mentioned Rogers/Bell wanting to own content (which is one of reasons why they bought MLSE ofcourse), but that doesn't mean they don't have a line drawn where the cost of that content is no longer acceptable. For instance, whoever owns the history channel isn't going to pay David Hasselhoff 20 mil dollars to host a show on the history of gardening books. Its just not cost effective. The same applies to their sports teams.

Rogers/Bell bought MLSE with the plan on owning the content they show - but they also want to be profitable. Even if we assume Rogers/Bell would be less conservative then OTPP, and more willing to spend, as it stands right now there is no evidence they'd willingly spend deep into the tax to do so. The cost of their content still needs to be less then their income from it, and at a price that allows them to pay back the the purchase price of buying that content.

That the Boozer trade didn't happen could be evidence of this. To me it was a no brainer deal (assuming the deal rumoured was the deal on the table - which I'll admit is a huge assumption). I can only see 2 reason's why that deal wasn't taken. 1) MLSE wasn't willing to, or yet willing to, pay any more in salaries. 2) Colangelo thinks Bargnani is worth more than Boozer. (just to throw it out there the third reason I could see as to why the deal didn't happen is the deal wasn't actually what was rumoured. ie. Chicago wanted something else but for the purposes of this thread I'm assuming the rumoured deal was THE deal available)

So, again, does it make sense to be a spending team? From a perspective of trying to win now it doesn't make sense not to. But from a business/profitability perspective, we'd have to ask MLSE's CFO. Rogers/Bell don't turn profits by throwing good money after bad (and I can tell you, atleast with Bell, their shareholders tend to eyeball big purchases. Bell has a questionable history in that regard). But the Boozer deal not going down raises a red flag to me.

As usual, you raise a lot of good points.

A 4th reason could be the Raptors wanted more and are willing to wait until draft night or early July when Boozer is still untouchable for any other team and the Bulls are looking at another year of increased luxury tax, another year closer to the repeater tax, and still no one willing to take Boozer off their hands while paying Gibson $7.5M (Boozer/Gibson combined $23M).

I would not underestimate the motivation of owners to not pay the tax. Remember, the tax is increasing significantly but add to that they do not get a share of the also increased revenue sharing. So suddenly being $5M over the cap could cost you $20M ($12.75 in salary/tax plus portion of revenue sharing).

This deal would move the Bulls under the current tax by almost $2.5M plus what ever the cap/tax levels increase by next season. Bargnani likely would not be starter in Chicago with Gibson having a large contract and a better player. Also, next season they will have another year counting towards the repeater tax. A first round pick is also guaranteed money which they may not wish to add.

You may very well be right on everything but in keeping with the spirit of the thread, there are going to be less and less basketball trades being made when it comes to money. Saving $5M under the new tax will save the Bulls anywhere from $12.5M to 13.75M ($5M salary plus $7.5M tax on first $5M over tax or $8.75M from $5-10M over tax).

I actually agree with you that the Bulls will be motivated to get out from under the luxury tax, especially given Reinsdorf's history of frugality. I just think they will have other avenues to do so that don't involve them losing the "basketball side" of the trade so steeply and giving up a cost-effective first round pick in the process. It almost seems to good to be true as a Raptors fan.

A 4th reason could be the Raptors wanted more and are willing to wait until draft night or early July when Boozer is still untouchable for any other team and the Bulls are looking at another year of increased luxury tax, another year closer to the repeater tax, and still no one willing to take Boozer off their hands while paying Gibson $7.5M (Boozer/Gibson combined $23M).

This would actually be a smart move by BC (perhaps the first?). The Raptors weren't going to win a title this year by adding Boozer for Bargnani. The Raps are in the position of power in this negotiation because a) very few teams willing to take on Boozer's contract, b) Chicago's position into the tax means they are more pressed to make a deal. If BC is smart enough to wait, use the tax leverage and the "only game in town" angle, then perhaps we can get a better return in the deal than if we had done it at the deadline. As much as fans want Bargnani gone, the Raps aren't in the position where they HAVE to trade him, while the finances might dictate that the Bulls must make the deal.

I actually agree with you that the Bulls will be motivated to get out from under the luxury tax, especially given Reinsdorf's history of frugality. I just think they will have other avenues to do so that don't involve them losing the "basketball side" of the trade so steeply and giving up a cost-effective first round pick in the process. It almost seems to good to be true as a Raptors fan.

It definitely does. I agree. Hopefully this is the new NBA and hopefully the Raps can capitalize on being a profitable team with wealthy owners having increased motivation for a winning on court/on TV in a large/affluent market.

This would actually be a smart move by BC (perhaps the first?). The Raptors weren't going to win a title this year by adding Boozer for Bargnani. The Raps are in the position of power in this negotiation because a) very few teams willing to take on Boozer's contract, b) Chicago's position into the tax means they are more pressed to make a deal. If BC is smart enough to wait, use the tax leverage and the "only game in town" angle, then perhaps we can get a better return in the deal than if we had done it at the deadline. As much as fans want Bargnani gone, the Raps aren't in the position where they HAVE to trade him, while the finances might dictate that the Bulls must make the deal.

You don't think the Raps HAVE to trade Bargnani?? I think if Bargnani comes back next year ALL HELL WILL BREAK LOOSE. I don't think management should be so eager to test our patience regarding Bargnani.

Basketball wise --- Bargnani must be moved
Smart $$ wise ---- Bargnani is unproductive at $10-11 million per season and must be moved

I think we're just as desperate as Chicago (only difference is they have playoff revenue to make up for Boozer's contract) whereas we just plainly suck with AB. Not to mention Bargs is injury prone as well.....First order of business this off-season should be trading bargs IMO. The dude is a cancer on this team.

You don't think the Raps HAVE to trade Bargnani?? I think if Bargnani comes back next year ALL HELL WILL BREAK LOOSE. I don't think management should be so eager to test our patience regarding Bargnani.

Basketball wise --- Bargnani must be moved
Smart $$ wise ---- Bargnani is unproductive at $10-11 million per season and must be moved

I think we're just as desperate as Chicago (only difference is they have playoff revenue to make up for Boozer's contract) whereas we just plainly suck with AB. Not to mention Bargs is injury prone as well.....First order of business this off-season should be trading bargs IMO. The dude is a cancer on this team.

We want to move Bargnani, but we don't have the luxury tax penalties/ownership pressure to move him like Chicago seems to have with getting below the tax line, so yeah, we dont have to move Bargnani. That is negotiation leverage to use with Chicago.

I also don't see Bargnani as a cancer on the team. Cancers are usually guys who rip the team apart by talking behind players/coaches backs and vocally complaining about their lot in life. Bargnani doesn't seem to care enough to complain, so guys will ignore him easily.

We want to move Bargnani, but we don't have the luxury tax penalties/ownership pressure to move him like Chicago seems to have with getting below the tax line, so yeah, we dont have to move Bargnani. That is negotiation leverage to use with Chicago.

I also don't see Bargnani as a cancer on the team. Cancers are usually guys who rip the team apart by talking behind players/coaches backs and vocally complaining about their lot in life. Bargnani doesn't seem to care enough to complain, so guys will ignore him easily.

Bargs DID say that we're basically the worst team in the nba.

Also, his effort is always questioned.

Also, he gets coddled like NO OTHER (ask JV and ED).

He makes Dwane say dumb things like "come hell or high water.".... the list goes on

He makes Dwane say dumb things like "come hell or high water.".... the list goes on

Reach

Reach

...and Reach.

None of those things equal cancer (did you see the bench stand up and applaud when Bargs came into the game, to counteract the booing. This is not what a team does when a guy is a cancer. His team mates support him. there are qualities that they see behind the scenes that are not obvious to the casual fan like yourself.

None of those things equal cancer (did you see the bench stand up and applaud when Bargs came into the game, to counteract the booing. This is not what a team does when a guy is a cancer. His team mates support him. there are qualities that they see behind the scenes that are not obvious to the casual fan like yourself.

Thanks, couldn't have put it better myself. Barg's isn't the most popular guy on the team (lazy people usually aren't) but he is so far away from being a cancer.